Does Machiavelli advocate “immoral” means in politics and war? Present specific textual evidence, pro and con. How does Machiavelli’s view of politics differ from Ancient and Christian views of politics?
Instructions
Read Machiavelli's The Prince, or as much as possible from it. (It's a slim book, worth reading in its entirety). You are not required to restrict yourself to the selections in the Brown et al. textbook; the assigned reading goes beyond those sections, and it's all available on the internet. Read also the selections from the Discourses.
Do some secondary research - read some of the articles listed below, or do your own research. The point is to get acquainted with contrasting interpretations of Machiavelli, not so much to reproduce them in your paper; you still have to argue your own view, regardless of what others say.
Select a specific thesis: do you think Machiavelli advocates immorality or not? Is he a "teacher of evil"? Consider whether Machiavelli might have a "moral" purpose for advocating immorality.
Discuss evidence that supports your view as well as passages that appear to undermine it.
In a concluding section (a few paragraphs) discuss the ways in which Machiavelli's view of politics (moral or immoral) might be similar or different from the views of politics of at least one of the Ancient or Medieval thinkers we have studied: Aristotle, Cicero, Thucydides, Aquinas, Erasmus, or Vitoria. Does Machiavelli advocate the use of means that other writers would have condemned? Why? Does he value other things more than they did? Why? Remember to provide citations from the thinkers you are using to contrast with Machiavelli.
Berlin, Isaiah. 1971. The Question of Machiavelli. The New York Review of Books, Vol. 17, No. 7. (November 4 issue). Link.
John Langton. 1987. Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or Teaching the Prince. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 81, No. 4., pp. 1277-1288. Link.
Timothy J. Lukes. 2001. Lionizing Machiavelli. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 3., pp. 561-575. Link.
Abstract: Machiavelli scholarship is prolific but claustrophobic. Even though chapter 18 of The Prince advises the aspiring leader to emulate both lion and fox, commentators ignore or devalue the lion and focus on the fox. Machiavelli is thereby depicted as a champion of cleverness and deception, and not much else. This article takes up the lion. It argues that Machiavelli's lion is not a simple and violent beast, but is rather a complex tutor that complements clinical and lonely foxiness with crucial injections of virility and community.
John Leonard. 1984. Public versus Private Claims: Machiavellianism from Another Perspective. Political Theory, Vol. 12, No. 4., pp. 491-506. Link.
Ingersoll, David E. 1968. “The Constant Prince: Private Interests and Public Goals in Machiavelli.” The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 588-596. Link.
Skinner, Quentin. 2000. Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Library catalog.
A short introduction to Machiavelli by one of the foremost scholars of the period.
Strauss, Leo. 1958. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Library catalog.
A book that argued the case for Machiavelli as a "teacher of evil." Chapter II is available as an article, "Machiavelli's Intention: The Prince," in the American Political Science Review, 51(1):13-40. Link.
Viroli, Maurizio. 1998. Machiavelli. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Library catalog.
Argues the case for a "Republican" Machiavelli, concerned with the liberty of the city and hating tyranny in all forms.
Wolin, Sheldon. Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Chapter 7 contains an influential interpretation of Machiavelli as the originator of an idea about the "economy of violence": see here; see also Library catalog.
Table of Contents
Instructions
Resources
- Berlin, Isaiah. 1971. The Question of Machiavelli. The New York Review of Books, Vol. 17, No. 7. (November 4 issue). Link.
- John Langton. 1987. Machiavelli's Paradox: Trapping or Teaching the Prince. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 81, No. 4., pp. 1277-1288. Link.
- Timothy J. Lukes. 2001. Lionizing Machiavelli. The American Political Science Review, Vol. 95, No. 3., pp. 561-575. Link.
Abstract: Machiavelli scholarship is prolific but claustrophobic. Even though chapter 18 of The Prince advises the aspiring leader to emulate both lion and fox, commentators ignore or devalue the lion and focus on the fox. Machiavelli is thereby depicted as a champion of cleverness and deception, and not much else. This article takes up the lion. It argues that Machiavelli's lion is not a simple and violent beast, but is rather a complex tutor that complements clinical and lonely foxiness with crucial injections of virility and community.- John Leonard. 1984. Public versus Private Claims: Machiavellianism from Another Perspective. Political Theory, Vol. 12, No. 4., pp. 491-506. Link.
- Ingersoll, David E. 1968. “The Constant Prince: Private Interests and Public Goals in Machiavelli.” The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 588-596. Link.
- Skinner, Quentin. 2000. Machiavelli: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Library catalog.
A short introduction to Machiavelli by one of the foremost scholars of the period.- Strauss, Leo. 1958. Thoughts on Machiavelli. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Library catalog.
A book that argued the case for Machiavelli as a "teacher of evil." Chapter II is available as an article, "Machiavelli's Intention: The Prince," in the American Political Science Review, 51(1):13-40. Link.- Viroli, Maurizio. 1998. Machiavelli. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Library catalog.
Argues the case for a "Republican" Machiavelli, concerned with the liberty of the city and hating tyranny in all forms.